U.N. finalizing arms treaty to regulate weapons transfers worldwide

posted at 4:01 pm on July 11, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

As we’ve seen time and again, the United Nations is little more than an ineffective, morally squishy, highly corrupted joke of an international bureaucracy that in the long run has done hardly anything productive in stabilizing global affairs or promoting lasting peace. Honestly, why do we contribute funding (and the lion’s share, at that!) to this globalist boondoggle? So we can be lectured about how our economic prowess is ostensibly creating a climate emergency while China sits smugly on their Human Rights Council? Thanks, but I’ll pass on the proffered guilt trip.

Throughout the month, the United Nations is working on an arms treaty ostensibly aimed at reducing violence that has America’s pro-Second Amendment crowd up in arms. While President Bush was reliably resistant to heeding the U.N. on the idea (bravo!), President Obama reversed U.S. policy on that score in 2009 by bringing the U.S. back to the bargaining table:

International talks in New York are going on throughout July on the final wording of the so-called Arms Trade Treaty, which supporters such as Amnesty International USA say would rein in unregulated weapons that kill an estimated 1,500 people daily around the world. But critics, including the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, warn the treaty would mark a major step toward the eventual erosion of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment gun-ownership rights. …

While the treaty’s details are still under discussion, the document could straitjacket U.S. foreign policy to the point where Washington could be restricted from helping arm friends such as Taiwan and Israel…

LaPierre says the treaty that is likely to emerge will have the effect of squeezing individual gun owners in the United States and elsewhere by imposing on them an onerous collection of regulations. …

“The world’s worst human rights abusers will end up voting for this, while the Obama administration has not drawn a line in the sand like the previous administration did. Instead, it is trying to be a part of this train wreck because they think they can somehow finesse it. But, to me, there is no finessing the individual freedoms of American citizens.”

The United Nations can’t manage to get its act together on cracking down on genocide, terrorism, and human rights abuses, but we’re to trust them to orchestrate regulations that would clash with our own policies? I can’t see that working out well, and I’ll go ahead and make a wild guess that somewhere down the road this would end up benefiting dictatorial regimes while depriving good citizens of the fundamental right to bear arms.

Even if President Obama could get behind the idea, our current Congress won’t — and seeing how the Senate has to ratify treaties, I don’t foresee the U.S. signing on to this. Preach it, Mr. LaPierre:

Oops: In my last paragraph, I originally wrote that “Congress” has to ratify treaties — I’ve clarified it to just the Senate above!

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Don’t worry, someone will eventually challenge it legally and take it to the SCOTUS, but they’ll just grace us with another “5-dimesnional chess” opinion that re-defines “arms” or whatever nonsense to allow it.

We are fast running out of legitimate avenues for redress of grievances. And what comes next is never pretty.

???? Abe was the first gop candidate, meaning the GOP was a third party trying to horn in on the Whigs.

The Whigs were done. The Republican Party was made of Whig remnants. It was not a third party. It was a new party. The Constitutional Union Party was a third party, made up of Whig scraps also, but it went the way of all third parties.

So yeah, Gary has just as good a chance of winning as any other, never mind what the polls say, because he’s going to be on practically all the ballots in the union along with that other candidate, Write-in. Only time will tell what the Poll of November 6 brings us. AH_C on July 11, 2012 at 8:21 PM

He’s on practically all the ballots you say?! That’s a novel strategy.

The 2nd amendment is a huge reason why I support Gary Johnson. He has always been a strong defender of our 2nd amendment rights and has never been a gun grabber like Obama and Romney have. Gary isn’t a statist like the others, either, so I can say with confidence that he would not only defend our own rights but would work against such measures at the UN to prevent the rest of the world from being subjugated as well.

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Perhaps so.

But Gary Johnson isn’t even going to be a blip on the electoral radar.
Better to vote so that it actually helps America.

Gary Johnson is a pretty tenacious guy, and he made a dang good governor of our state of New Mexico. Here’s some Wikipedia info…

“Johnson founded one of New Mexico’s largest construction companies.[2] He entered politics for the first time by running for Governor of New Mexico in 1994 on a fiscally conservative, low-tax, anti-crime platform.[3] He beat incumbent Democratic governor Bruce King by 50% to 40%. He cut the 10% annual growth in the budget: in part, due to his use of the gubernatorial veto 200 times during his first six months in office,[2] which gained him the nickname “Governor Veto”.[4][5]

Johnson sought re-election in 1998, winning by 55% to 45%. In his second term, he concentrated on the issue of school voucher reforms,[6] as well as campaigning for marijuana decriminalization. During his tenure as governor, Johnson adhered to an anti-tax and anti-bureaucracy policy, setting state and national records for his use of veto powers:[2] more than the other 49 contemporary governors put together.[7][8] Term-limited, Johnson could not run for re-election at the end of his second term. As a fitness enthusiast,[9][10] Johnson has taken part in several Ironman Triathlons, and he climbed Mount Everest in May 2003.[11]”

He left a good sized surplus, but the Bill Richardson came along and took care of that…expanded government big time.

Now people who espouse traditional “Republican” values like the 2nd amendment are just supposed to shut up. Well FU, Riddick!

FloatingRock on July 11, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Are you sure you’re not a democrat? You sure argue like one.

Voting out of spite, “because it will serve those RINOs right”, certainly won’t help America, guarantee 2nd Amendment rights or protect the Constitution.
Just the opposite, in fact……unless you are one of those who hope for armed insurrection.

Voting out of spite, “because it will serve those RINOs right”, certainly won’t help America, guarantee 2nd Amendment rights or protect the Constitution.
Just the opposite, in fact……unless you are one of those who hope for armed insurrection.

Solaratov on July 12, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Its morons like FloatingRock (very precise nickname, BTW) that gave us 8 years of Clinton.

Its morons like FloatingRock (very precise nickname, BTW) that gave us 8 years of Clinton.

riddick on July 12, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Exactly – and I was one of those idiots who voted for Perot, mainly because of “read my lips, no new taxes” – but I’m willing to admit my mistakes. However, I will only accept my share of the blame for the first 4 Clinton years.
I just don’t understand how you can really believe you’re accomplishing anything by voting for someone who might at best get 2% of the national vote. If he gets 2% and it all comes from people who would otherwise vote for Romney – it could give us 4 more years of Obumble.

And BTW – I looked at a listing of Johnson’s positions. Quite a few are decent, but I can’t accept a 43% cut in the defense budget – the one major federal spending item that is actually valid under the Constitution. And there are others I’m not thrilled about. Granted I don’t agree 100% with any politician, but that guy has a few that are just plain bad.

Abe was the first gop candidate, meaning the GOP was a third party trying to horn in on the Whigs.

AH_C on July 11, 2012 at 8:21 PM

First, Abe wasn’t the first GOP candidate, Fremont was back in ’56. Second, the Whigs had imploded on their own. Some went into the GOP, some went elsewhere into third and fourth parties. (The “No-Nothings” American party, the Constitutional Unionist etc., etc, some went into the Dem party too.) And third, Gary is no Abe Lincoln.
This time around either you are voting for Obama or you are voting for Mitt, Period. Any other name you write-in is really voting for Obama, plain and simple. If you want to vote for Obama, then vote for him, but don’t try to explain that a vote for Gary is anything other than what it is.

This time around either you are voting for Obama or you are voting for Mitt, Period. Any other name you write-in is really voting for Obama, plain and simple. If you want to vote for Obama, then vote for him, but don’t try to explain that a vote for Gary is anything other than what it is.

While I agree that a vote for Gary Johnson is wasted and a refusal to vote for Romney on ideological grounds ultimately helps Obama…it’s still his vote, not yours. If you don’t like how some private citizen votes you have every right to complain and an equal right to pound sand up your a$$. How long are you going to harp on this issue…until he changes his mind? Good luck with that.
Frankly, I find arrogance more offensive than recalcitrance.

I fully agree. So some of us don’t care for having someone who wants to throw away his vote tell us we’re a bunch of idiots who don’t care about the 2nd Amendment just because we intend to vote for a candidate who actually has a chance to win – even if he’s not our first choice.

If you’re going to jump in this late in the game, at least read the full thread to understand what’s been going on.

I fully agree. So some of us don’t care for having someone who wants to throw away his vote tell us we’re a bunch of idiots who don’t care about the 2nd Amendment just because we intend to vote for a candidate who actually has a chance to win – even if he’s not our first choice.

If you’re going to jump in this late in the game, at least read the full thread to understand what’s been going on.

dentarthurdent on July 12, 2012 at 3:07 PM

I wonder how long it will take till the first, second, third, ect “electable” choices are all terrible and no one is allowed to vote or stand up for the person who they feel represents them best without fear of backlash. Oh wait, we’re already there.